JUDGMENT : S.G.PANDIT, J. The above writ appeals are filed, questioning the correctness and legality of the common order dated 03.01.2013 passed in W.P.No.37797/2011 whereunder, O.M. dated 13.06.2011 withdrawing notification dated 02.09.2010 issued under Section 48(1) of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) de-notifying the acquired lands, was quashed. 2. Though the matters are listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the appeals are taken up for disposal. 3. Heard learned counsel Sri.C.V.Kumar for appellants in W.A.No.2927/2013, Smt.Mamatha Shetty, learned AGA for respondent No.1, Sri.Unnikrishnan, learned counsel for respondent No.2/Bangalore Development Authority (“BDA” for short); Sri.Vikram Huilgol, learned senior counsel for Sri.Rohan Hosmath, learned counsel for legal representatives of respondent No.3, the original petitioner before the writ court in W.A.No.2927/2013 and W.A.No.2895/2013 and Smt.Mamatha Shetty, learned AGA for the appellant, Sri.Unnikrishnan, learned counsel for respondent No.1/BDA and Sri.H.N.Basavaraju, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in W.A.No.5593/2013. Perused the writ appeal papers including the affidavit filed by the legal representatives of the original petitioner dated 26.06.2024. 4. The writ petition was filed questioning the O.M. dated 13.06.2011 by which, the notification issued under Section 48(1) of the Act was withdrawn. Initially, the lands were acquired under Notification dated 28.07.1990 under the provisions of Bangalore Development Authority Act for formation of BTM Layout 6 th Stage. The petitioner’s land to an extent of 3 acres was notified for acquisition. Thereafter, on the representation of the petitioner, by Notification dated 22.09.2010, the land in question i.e., 3 acres was de-notified. In the meanwhile, the appellants were allotted sites in the land in question, i.e., Sy.No.80/1 in the year 1994. Subsequently, by another O.M. dated 13.06.2011, the notification issued under Section 48(1) of the Act was withdrawn, which was the subject matter of the writ petition. Under impugned order dated 03.06.2013, the learned Single Judge quashed the O.M. dated 13.06.2011. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants herein who were not parties to the writ petition filed the present appeals, so also the State Government is in appeal in W.A.No.5593/2013. 5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Vikram Huilgol appearing for legal representatives of the original petitioner would submit that due to subsequent developments which had taken place, the writ appeals would no more survive and interest of the allottees i.e., the appellants herein is protected. 5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Vikram Huilgol appearing for legal representatives of the original petitioner would submit that due to subsequent developments which had taken place, the writ appeals would no more survive and interest of the allottees i.e., the appellants herein is protected. Further, learned senior counsel would submit that the legal representatives of respondent No.3 herein executed registered relinquishment deed dated 07.01.2016 in respect of the land in Sy.No.80/1 to an extent of 3 acres in favour of the BDA and in turn, the BDA allotted 11 sites to the appellants by executing sale deed dated 13.01.2016. The 11 sites allotted to the appellants apparently are in a different survey number. The appellants were aggrieved, since the de-notification notification was issued subsequent to allotment of sites. In fact, the appellants herein had approached this Court in W.P.No.14170/2011, questioning the de-notification notification dated 22.09.2010. The said writ petition was disposed of only on the ground that the said de- notification notification was withdrawn by subsequent O.M. dated 13.06.2011. 6. In view of execution of relinquishment deeds by the legal representatives of the original petitioner i.e., respondent No.3 herein, relinquishing their rights over the land in Sy.No.80/1 and subsequent allotment of 11 sites in their favour by the BDA, allotment of sites to the appellants herein is continued and their rights have not been affected. 7. Learned counsel Sri.Unnikrishnan appearing for BDA would not dispute the subsequent developments stated above. He would also state that the allotment made in favour of the appellants herein would not be cancelled and their sale deeds are intact. 8. In view of the above, writ appeals stand disposed of, and to the above extent, the order of the learned Single Judge is modified. In view of disposal of W.A.No.2895/2013, acceptance of service report of court notice to appellants No.7, 8, 10,11 and 12 would not arise.